Yeah, I guess that's why every economist agrees with what I say. It doesn't work for large societies. And since large societies aren't socialists, it means they have more poor people. Everyone except for you agree that poverty is the main cause of crime.
”
Source?
I'm tempted to bring up your views and personal accounts in Sao Paulo and the muggings there where you bring an extra $5 just for those incidents..
Such simplicity is not complimentary to your argument. Sorry, I'm not the kind of simpleton such arguments appeal to: Take the incident I mentioned from Seattle, in which a mentally ill man was shot to death after attacking someone who was armed. I wasn't there. I cannot question the propriety of the shooting. Would my life have been in danger?
For that crazed-man to attack someone, being shot is an approriate response. Why on earth do you dare attempt to defend criminals? Don't want to get shot? Simple, don't friggin' attack people! And don't say this is a special case because the criminal was a mental patient because cases like that happen all the time where the assaulter isn't a mental patient. And how does the victim know the guy's a mental patient anyways?
As you've seen in the threads I posted, attackers have been warded off without the use of a gun so obviously you can see that not every account involves the assaulter being shot. It's not for you to judge whether or not a gun was justifiable, only the victim is. Again, in your case you mention, the attacker was shot. In many cases, an attacker was shot. In some cases you've read, the attackers weren't shot. Either way it doesn't matter what the victim chose to do as no matter what, the assaulter was committing a violent crime. Please quit trying to defend criminals making them out to be the victims and the regular citizens being assaulted as the bad guys.
Shooting someone over a car, for example: again, not only have I heard such rhetoric from some gun advocates, but I've also known a thief to have been shot over a car stereo. Don't get me wrong, the guy was an asshole, and I'm aware that he wouldn't have hit that car had it not been for my recounting an episode of having locked my keys in my car, but I've had my own cars stolen twice, and no, I don't value "my" safety or "my" daughter's safety enough to own a gun for those occasions.
A thief isn't just being shot over a car stereo. Why not? Because thieves don't just take one car stereo. A thief is a thief -- they steal multiple things from mutiple people. Do you want to know why your car was stolen TWICE? Because of people like you who would basically let the thief go free. You think that you're the only victim and you just let a thief go who was just stealing one car stereo, but no, that thief went off to steal from other people. By you not taking action, you allowed other people to fall victim to that person. This is why it's disheartening when not just a thief, but an attacker or failed rapist runs away because it means that unfortunately, someone else is going to fall prey to them, and they most likely won't be saved from the attacker running away, but rather the next victim wind up getting hurt big time.
Rather, most others don't see death as being so natural: it's a part of life. I find it interesting that you claim to not fear death, yet imply ("carelessly try and end my life") that a failure to defend yourself against imagined threats equals suicide.
I wasn't referring to suicide but rather being careless with my safety. You know, like walking into a bad part of town at night without any protection. Or extreme sports people that do crazy things for the rush where their lives are easily put in jeopardy?
Religious people sure love heaven, yes? Isn't it supposed to be the greatest thing that is pure paradise? Well, there are billions of people on this earth that are religious yet I don't see any of them wanting to die anytime soon. Go ask those people how they feel about death and I betcha almost all of em will say while they don't fear death, they don't wanna die or put themselves in situations where they risk doing so, even though paradise supposedly awaits them when that time comes.
Does a failure to have a home security system mean that people in the Seattle area whose homes have been burglarized recently wanted or chose victimization? Does the failure of a good friend to have armed herself against her father's improprieties during her youth mean she wanted to be raped, or chose to have sexual contact with her father? Does my lack of a personal bomb shelter mean I want the North Koreans to detonate a device in Seattle?
Why don't you ask the people who were victim when those times came? No, it doesn't mean those victims WANT those acts to happen, but rather they could have prevented them from happening once the bad guys decided to do the deed. I'm sure you're aware of all the stories of people kicking themselves wishing they would have done this or that to help prevent those acts from happening and/or being able to put a stop to it affecting them when it came.
Consider a simple question with vastly diverse and often complex possible answers: When we weep at a funeral, why are we weeping?
I weep not from the person being dead, but from seeing the saddness of everyone else weeping. The saddness of many has a bigger effect than the saddness of one person, the person who died.
I don't understand what this has to do in regards to the gun argument though.
I'm willing to bet my own life at the very least that if crime visits me to the grave or grievous injury, having a gun would have made no difference at all.
Yes, which is why over 1.5 million crimes are prevented each year thanks to guns when only 600,000 or so crimes are commited with a gun. Guns benefit us more each year than they do criminals.
If I may summarize the thread so far regarding gun control:
I haven't seen a single valid argument against gun control in the entire thread.
Ergo, gun control does not prevent gun 'enjoyment' or ownership. Nor does it prevent the formation of an effective well regulated militia.
Because nobody is against gun control, not even gun-owners. What we're against is ridiculous gun control which renders us owning them basically useless or even worse, banning them outright.
And in case you don't already know, gun control already exists in the U.S.
As for Finland having laws against not being able to use a gun in self-defense, that's fine with them, but not for us. We have a higher amount of crime in our country than they do. It's a part of daily life for many people. Guns stop over 1.5 million violent crimes each year so there's a good defensive use for them while only 600,000 or so crimes are commited each with them. And guns are outright BANNED in the cities where the majority of crimes in our country happens -- and in case you don't realize BANNED is worse than "strict-gun control" of Finland -- yet gun crimes still happen. There isn't anything you can do to stop a criminal from commiting a crime nor stop them from getting a gun as you can see with them being banned, the ultimate of extreme control.
My point is this Neildo. You are going along the premise that all gun owners who have a concealed to carry licence are responsible. My point is that not all are. Sure quite a few of them might be, but not all. Not all gun owners are responsible.
Well yeah, that's obvious. With everything in life there are bad seeds, but you don't see them being considered the majority, do you? There are corrupt cops, irresonsible doctors, sex-craved teachers, and all sorts of examples. By trying to point out rare cases, you're preaching to the choir doing whatever you can to make the group you don't like seem bad. Save those obvious comments because all it does is point out how little real material you have against gun-owners and only goes to show how desperate you are in trying to make them look bad.
Surely you don't assume that others who don't have the permit simply do not carry theres for "protection"?
Another example of a desperate comment. Yes, obviously there are people who carry around guns not for protection. Those are criminals. Those are the people we try to protect ourselves from. And heck, most criminals don't even bother to get a permit in the first place as that means their name is in the database known to be an owner of a handgun.
I wonder how many never bother with the concealment licence, instead just get a gun permit and carry it around with them? I'd actually hate to think of the numbers. You might say they are breaking the law or they somehow do not apply, but the fact of the matter is, it is the law that allowed them to buy the gun to carry on their person (which is a breach of the law). You've admitted yourself and the figures show that very few get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Yes, and? Does that mean the law is faulty? Nope. As with Spuriousmonkey mentioning how you can't own a gun in Finland for "defensive purposes" yet you can for numerous others, all you have to do is say you want the gun for the other reasons, even if it may be for defensive reasons, and you can own one. And then he'll say that "oh, but law requires your gun to be disassembled in a safe" which, uh, doesn't mean anything if the police don't go door-to-door to check up on everyone making sure that's what they do.
Anyhow, yes, as I've said before, there are people who pack a gun without a CCW permit. Everyone abuses laws. And for those people without a CCW permit that carry them for self-defense purposes, they get prosecuted when they end up using a firearm out in public for defensive purposes. However, I'm sure that's a risk they're willing to take. Many people value their life over death and see jail time as a slight inconvenience.
And hell, people still get thrown in jail for defending their home with a shotgun or rifle which is perfectly legal and a perfectly legal thing to do when robbed or assaulted in your home. Things aren't so easy for gun-owners. Every gun-owner expects his ass to get in trouble when involved in an incident where they're victim, even when doing everything by the book. Even when everything goes perfectly and you don't get charged for defending yourself, your gun still gets confiscated at the very least.
Your comment about weapons in the home not requiring a lot of training is another point that demands comment. I'd have assumed that any weapon one decided to get should require the maximum training for all possible scenarios as being mandatory. Having a gun in a house should not require less training than if you wish to carry a concealed weapon.
Oh, I agree. I have no problem with extra mandatory classes. Most people I know have taken 2-3 classes, some even advanced ones that involve S.W.A.T.-like tactics. Personally, it's fun as hell and I don't know why people wouldn't wanna do it, but that all costs extra money. Maybe if we weren't taxed SO friggin' much just to own a gun, people would be able to take those classes. To just even ATTEMPT to get a CCW permit, it costs around $200 for the paperwork, and that doesn't mean you'll be accepted. That right there is enough for an awesome class. It sucks for those who have a sherriff who turns down people left and right because he's anti-gun where people have to try mutiple times or wait until the sherriff is out of office before attemping to try again for a CCW permit. And again, that's just the cost for the paperwork for a CCW permit, you have to pay for all sorts of papers and it quickly adds up!
Well if he was anything like TT who thinks people should have AK47's and Uzzi's for self defence, who knows what the hell he was using.
Yes, and people can already own AKs and Uzis. However, what you people fail to realize is that citizens are restricted to semi-automatic weapons (ie: single shot, NOT fully automatic) so there's nothing to fear about an AK over a regular ol' hunting rifle as they're basically the same otherwise except for looks.
The point is that having a gun in the home or on your person can make a situation deadlier than it might have been otherwise.
Again, duh, yeah, a situation CAN be made deadlier, but more often than not, it isn't so. Everyone realizes bad things happen and again, that applies to everything. Quit trying to paint the rare bad occurances as common things otherwise I may never go to the doctor again or send my kids to school in fear of all the experimental doctors and pedophile teachers out there.
A lot of the quotes posted above by Tiassa, pulled from your links only prove that not having or drawing a gun probably saved their lives.
I know, and that's the reason why I posted those links for those that think we all just shoot first and ask questions later.
I never denied those incidents happening, but I'm arguing against is your attempt to try and paint those as every day and common occurances. Those types of accidents are rare.
”
Ask your VP for how easily it is to shoot someone by accident lol.
And thank you for pointing out how rare they are. Name another VP, President, or any other government official who's had that incident happen to them.
Hunting accidents are quite common though, and I put emphasis on common. Good thing I stay away from it, but that's a risk hunters have no problem dealing with.
As for the bible thumping anti blacks, homosexual gun owners.. they are sadly your biggest supporter in this argument. But I think waiting for a terrorist invasion or a fall of government can be just as bad or dangerous. You can see those taking aim at any muslim person who comes into their crosshairs.
And while I'd hate to break the news to you, but those places also have lower crime. The "blue states" are the states with the highest crime rates in the U.S. -- and it's an ungodly high number at that with just New York city taking up 25% of it. And of course I'm going to have to mention that the majority of those blue states and cities have total gun bans. Remove NYC, NJ, and D.C. from those lists who are blue states/cities which ungodly high crime rates and the U.S. will look real good with an overall low crime rate.
Um, there is no such thing as a law-abiding citizen who starts killing people. That's an oxymoron.. a contradiction. A law-abiding criminal? Heh.
”
Yet any law abiding citizen can go out and legally attain a gun, and then use that gun to wilfully harm or kill others.
Again, that law-abiding citizen isn't one if he chooses to commit that act. Sure, it'll allow him to legally acquire a gun, but he'd still be better off doing it the criminal way of getting one on any ol' bad street corner, otherwise if he does it legally, he's now in the gun database, has to wait 10 days to get a gun, etc etc, when he can do it at the drop of a hat the way most criminals do.
Yeah, because there's no such thing as a guy who has to work in a bad part of night late at night. Yeah, there's no such thing as guys who aren't martial arts experts who are 6'2, 250 pounds or any other numerous examples I can cite just off the top of my head. - me
”
Yes there are. But what does owning a gun have to do with it? You've said yourself very few are ever permitted to get a permit to carry a gun concealed on your person. So how will those people who do work in the bad side of town at night etc, manage if they cannot get a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Well it would make getting a gun for self defence a bit pointless since if they did use it for self defence when walking those 'mean dark streets', they'd be breaking the law as they have no permit. - Bells
Yes, very few people own a CCW permit, and usually those types of people I mentioned are the ones with those permits. You have to have a reason to own a CCW permit and that's one of those good reasons. The cops wind up doing a complete background check on you and they'll find out which hours they work in what locations to see if the person is telling the truth and whatnot.
I wonder how many people who commit a crime with a gun first bought that gun when they were a law abiding citizen? I have a feeling the figures would be scary. You seem to act as though everyone who buys a gun legally is a 'good guy'.. one who would never do anything wrong with said gun.
Again, you're using the rare cases trying to make them out to be the majority. I am curious as to what the figures are though and how high legally acquired guns are used in crimes. At the very least, I know the majority of guns used in crimes are bought off the black market, are stolen, or are taken from someone they've trusted (friend takin it, kid takin it, etc) from breaking their safe, gettin it from their "secret" hiding spot, or being a moron and having it in a display case or something like that.
I have probably faced more criminals than you will ever see in your lifetime. I've had them stalk my home, my car, etc. I live in the reality that you bought a gun to protect yourself from.
I can almost guarantee you've not had as many criminal encounters as I, unless you're a cop in a big city, but at any rate, for you to say that and even still be vehemently opposed to the right of self-defense leaves me in utter disbelief. It's one thing to not ever been victim to a crime and preach peacy-peacy being against guns, but to actually have been victim so many times and still do so? Wow. Either you're a complete fool, may be a lil kinkster masochist, or you have higher morals than Gandhi himself.
And such a weapon would be useless if someone ever did break into my home, as Tiassa pointed out, by the time I got to the safe and got the gun out and then got to the bullets and loaded the damn thing, I'd have better spent my time getting my children and myself out of the house by either a window or back or side door, puting myself and my children out of harms way, instead of attempting to engage the intruder with a gun, which would put my children and myself IN harms way.
10 seconds is all you'd need. Grab a mini-safe and keep it near your bed that is either fingerprint activated or another similar activation that uses a touch-combination where you place your fingers in a certain order onto the lock. Those are made for those instances where you're in the dark unable to see. So lean over, do a quick instant fingerprint scan, safe pops open, grab pistol and magazine, slide magazine in, pull back the slide, grab mini flashlight from in safe, and you're good to go.
When it supposedly happens, your gun will probably be useless. When it happens, your primary concern will be to find shelter and food and transport to get the hell out of there.
A gun won't be useless. That's when it'll be needed the most. A gun in an instance of a natural disaster is used to defend your home from looters either trying to steal your goods, or the numerous people out looking for food. And sorry, in the example I gave, "getting the hell out of there" is impossible as there's only two highways that go up and down California so I'd be stuck able to go from one disaster spot to another, heh.
Tell me Neildo, if an earthquake hit tomorrow and your house was coming down around your ears, what would you do first? Get out of said house as quickly as possible or go to your safe for your guns and bullets and then get out, risking death from said house crashing down on you? Because if you are a responsible gun owner, when at home, your gun will be in a safe and the bullets kept elsewhere.. hmm think how much time and running around in a house that's collapsing that would take... So which would you do? I know what I'd do.
Well I have a one-story house with nothing in the attic so I wouldn't have to worry about it crashing down upon me as badly as one in a multi-story one or apartment complex. And uh, you thinking I'd run for my guns first is pretty funny.
Here's what would happen:
Big earthquake hits. Sleep through it until I realize it's "the big one", jump outta bed naked with a sheet around me or hopefully I had some boxers on, wake up everyone, grab the dogs, head under a doorway frame (most reinforced parts of a home), or head out to the front yard (poles and wires are in backyard) depending on how much time we have. Assuming all homes crumbled and fell apart, I'd go out to the shed where my secondary emergency supplies are since the ones in my home would have a hard trouble being accessed, turn on the portable hand-cranked/solar radio and found out what's going on and which roads are closed and/or cut off or jammed to the high heavens. Assuming the ways out of here are gone and we're stuck in our lil' plains surrounded by the hills, I'd have to hunker down and stay in our home. Guns won't be needed until a couple days later once some people run out of food and water or if some hoodlums start doing some early looting for expensive supplies that do no good when all hell's broken loose (I've always said WTF are people doing stealing TVs and stereos when Hurricane Katrina hit).
Anyhow, where I live, luckily we have numerous military bases over here. About a 5 minute walk down the street, I have the west coast Seabee base here which is a construction battalion unit. So I'd go volunteer, start helping with the rebuilding process and all that while the people at home defend it. Our neighborhood watch is a tightly knit group so we'd be fine securing our neighborhood from looters although my goods would still be hidden very well because sorry, I gotta make sure I have enough supplies for us before we can help others which is why ya never show off what stuff you have because you become a target for those in need.
So if a person breaks into your house with a baseball bat, you'd be justified in killing them with a gun? Ermm do you not have such a thing as reasonable use of force? For example, if you are attacked with a fork, using a gun to defend yourself is an unreasonable use of force. Do you have any proof at all that when the police say not to take the law into your own hands they are lying for public image?
Ahh yes, more whacky scenarios, lol. Anyhow, yes, I WOULD be justified shooting the burglar. Would I do it? No. First off, it's only legal here to shoot a burglar if you were "scared for your dear life" which yea, anyone can go ahead and say, but don't think the cops take your word for it as a huge investigation happens.
If a burglar comes at me with a friggin' fork, I wouldn't stoot him on the spot because he's non-threatening. However, if he continued to charge me then yes, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot him as him charging is showing he wants confrontation. I guess you want me to drop my handgun and go grab another fork so we can have an even fork-duel or something? Afterall, that's the least I can do to show this guy respect and make things equal even though he's a friggin' criminal breakin the law trying to surprise burglarize my family and I at night.
Usually the burglar would run at the sound of me racking the slide (assuming they didn't see me) or if they saw me with a gun, they'd still try and run even if it was still being pointed at them. If the burglar decided to run, I'd shoot em in the leg or foot. Nothing fatal as I don't think petty theft decides to wind up with death, but I WILL stop that guy from fleeing so he gets arrested so he won't be able to burglarize another home which may not have a gun-owner there to protect his family. Because he didn't attack me doesn't mean he may not attack the next unlucky family.
As for the police question, yes. Most cops, you know, the level-headed common sense ones, will tell you that you should always have protection. I've even asked that question to spokesmen that say that on T.V. and say they only say it because they have to. But the biggest reason is that the reason why what they say is not true on T.V. is that defending yourself in your own home isn't taking the law into your own hands because it's perfectly legal to. Writing a ticket to someone would be taking the law into your own hands as you're doing someone else's job. Vigilante justice is taking the law into your own hands, not defending your own home. Is putting on your seatbelt for safety "taking the law into your own hands"? Is looking both ways while crossing the street "taking the law into your own hands"? Uh, heh, no. Those acts are perfectly legal and you're not doing anyone else's job. The police's job isn't to protect you but to enforce laws and capture those that break them.
Its perfectly legal to defend yourself yes. But using force within reason (reasonable force in response to the threat to your person or property) and that is justified.
Nice of you to know that, so why are you trying to create some whacky stories for me to respond to when I obviously know the law as well?
I have been lucky? Hardly.
Oh, so you mean to tell me that the times you've been a victim to crime, you didn't luck out by them not taking any violent action against you and that they HAVE done so but you still feel you don't want people to defend themselves with guns? Uh..
Funny you should speak about the safes and how they should be used..
I'd suggest you actually read this article. It's quite scary when you realise how irresponsible people are and how numerous they are:
I hope Spuriousmonkey reads that. I'm curious as to how many people in Finland actually have their rifles fully disassembled when kept in their safe, even though it's the law.
Tell me Neildo, when 9/11 occured. What was the first thing you did? Reach for your gun?
Nope, just sat there and watched the news. You're confusing me with TT. I don't own a gun to protect myself from a terrorist considering there's a 0.00001% chance or even worse odds of me never being involved in one of their attacks. However, in TT's case of having to deal with the aftermath of destruction happening would be a lot higher, especially depending on where you live if in one of the high-valued targets. If he lives in New York, his having to deal with a nuke is like me waiting for "the big one" of earthquakes, except that regular damaging ones happen all the time over here, or numerous other accounts where damage isn't done, but we're stuck here for awhile in the case of mudslides. 9 hours to travel what would normally be 35 minutes all from one little mudslide.. ugh. If both highways had a mudslide, I would have been stuck there. Thankfully, it was a little mudslide so I only had to travel a long ways that one day and miss work for another. Even with those lil mudslides that happened all over last year, them being little ones, Schwarzenegger called for a state of emergency.
Because I can tell you now, their main priority was to get out
Nope, their main priority was to sit around in the towers thinking nothing was happening since the higher ups said "remain calm, nothing is happening" while the poor people listened to what their dumbass supervisors told em. Why do you think so many people died during 9/11? They were all sitting ducks. That's what happens when you put your trust in others instead of looking out for yourself. The smart ones left that said "hey, a plane crashed into this tower, it's better safe than sorry to leave now just in case". I would have been one of the few who left on their own when the first plane hit because I put my trust in myself. You can go ahead and listen to your supervisor and stay in your little cubicle just like you'll hope for the police to come when you call 911, or hope that the next time you get mugged, you don't wind up raped or violently hurt. Let 9/11 be a wake up call to what will happen to you in the future by not looking out for yourself.
But hang on a sec.. didn't you say you wouldn't want a gun because people who get them who are scared of blacks, homosexuals etc are just idiotic and more dangerous and therefore should not be trusted?.. well that argument kind of goes out the window after all doesn't it
Huh? When'd I ever say I wouldn't want a gun? I'd always want a gun, heck, even during a useless time such as 9/11 if I were up in those towers. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
So running around (possibly through the house if the intruders enter while I am in another part of the house) the house to the safe, if the intruders have not entered the area where the gun is stored, then to the bullets, loading the gun, getting to my child and hiding him or getting him out of the house (while I stupidly stay to defend my property ), will save me? All because I have a boom boom stick? Are you kidding me?
Wow, you must own a large home, I congradulate you on your success. Let's hope one day you don't find yourself wishing you'd have spent a mere $300 on a gun with all the money you may have. Mine's only around 1600 SQ feet and I can run from one end of the place to the other in 5 seconds. Hallway with rooms that lead to the living room with front door on left side and right leads to the kitchen. The kitchen has a door that leads to a small den which also leads back to the hallway. And, um, I can open my safe and load up a pistol in 5-10 seconds too. I suggest you invest in a dog or home alarm to give you that much-needed warning you seem to need to run around and grab your kid and flee to safety.
- N